OA232172012

As set out in my error of law finding, the appeal was dismissed under the Rules on three bases. Firstly, because of the failure to establish that there would not be additional recourse to public funds if the appellant were to be granted entry clearance; secondly that it had not been shown that the sponsor had sole responsibility for the appellant; and thirdly that it had not been shown that the appellant was under the age of 18 at the date of application.

At the resumed hearing I heard no live evidence and the matter proceeded by way of submissions. Mr Karim, who represented the appellant, submitted that although at one time the appellant�s parentage was a live issue it was no longer because there were DNA test results which showed to a very high degree that the sponsor and his wife are indeed the parents of the appellant. I agree with that submission. There is DNA evidence in the file from �Cellmark� which in its summary states as follows:-

�The DNA evidence supports the claimed relationship between Abdul Jalil and [the appellant].

The DNA evidence supports a family relationship between [the mother] and [the appellant] but the tests are inconclusive as to the true nature of the relationship. While the proposed relationship is statistically more likely other available evidence should be considered in this case.�

That evidence appears to be somewhat inconclusive. However, the report later concludes that the most likely relationship between the appellant and his claimed parents is 99.99%. In the absence of any other evidence therefore to the contrary it is safe to make a finding that the appellant is the son of the sponsor and his wife.